Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 29271 

the annual emissions from 2008 through 

2010 as reported to the CAMD database 

available at http://camddataandmaps.

epa.gov/gdm/.’’ 

10. On page 24024, Footnote 123 is 

amended to read as follows: ‘‘EPA’s 

CCM Sixth Edition, January 2002, EPA/ 

452/B–02–001, Section 1, Chapter 2, p. 

2–21.’’ 

11. On page 24025, Footnote 130 is 

amended to read as follows: ‘‘ICAC 

February 2008, p. 8.’’ 

12. On page 24031, Footnote 150 is 

amended to read as follows: ‘‘Baseline 

emissions were determined by averaging 

the annual emissions from 2008 to 2010 

as reported to the CAMD database 

available at http://camddataandmaps.

epa.gov/gdm/.’’ 

13. On page 24059, in the first 

column, the second paragraph is 

amended to read, ‘‘We are eliminating 

the four refineries from further 

consideration as a result of consent 

decrees entered into by the owners. 

Under these consent decrees, emissions 

have been reduced sufficiently after the 

2002 baseline so that the Q/D for each 

facility is below 10. Specifically, 

ExxonMobil’s emissions in 2009 of NOX

and SO2 were 1,019 tpy, resulting in a 

Q/D of 6. Cenex’s emissions in 2009 of 

NOX and SO2 were 727 tpy, resulting in 

a Q/D of 5. Conoco’s emissions in 2009 

of NOX and SO2 were 1,087 tpy, 

resulting in a Q/D of 8. Montana 

Refining’s emissions in 2009 of NOX

and SO2 were 122 tpy, resulting in a Q/ 

D of 2. The consent decrees are available 

in the docket.’’ 

14. On page 24063, in the first 

column, the first sentence of the last 

paragraph is amended to read, ‘‘We are 

relying on CELP’s estimates that SCR 

would take approximately 26 months to 

install and that SNCR would take 16 to 

24 weeks to install.239’’ 

15. On page 24064, the title for the 

last column of Table 162 is amended to 

read, ‘‘Remaining emissions (tpy).’’ 

16. On page 24070, in the third 

column, the fourth sentence of the 

second paragraph is amended to read, 

‘‘This control option is functionally 

equivalent to LSFO in terms of concept 

and control efficiency.’’ 

17. On page 24071, in the first 

column, the second full sentence of the 

first paragraph is amended to read, ‘‘We 

used 85% control for this analysis.’’ 

18. On page 24071, in the first 

column, the sixth sentence of the 

second paragraph is amended to read, 

‘‘We used 70% control for this analysis 

(about a 10% improvement over existing 

controls).’’ 

19. On page 24074, in the third 

column, the first sentence of the fifth 

paragraph is amended to read, ‘‘We 

identified that the following 

technologies to be available: extending 

the Claus reaction into a lower 

temperature liquid phase (the Sulfreen®

process) and tail gas scrubbing 

(Wellman-Lord, SCOT, and traditional 

FGD processes).’’ 

20. On page 24074, in the third 

column, the first sentence of the sixth 

paragraph is amended to read, ‘‘In the 

Sulfreen® process, the Claus reaction is 

extended at low temperatures (260 to 

300 °F) to recover SO2 and H2S in the 

tail gas.’’ 

21. On page 24075, in the third 

column, the third paragraph is amended 

to read, ‘‘Both the SCOT and Sulfreen®

processes are feasible; however, in the 

BART Guidelines, EPA states that it may 

be appropriate to eliminate from further 

consideration technologies that provide 

similar control levels at higher cost. See 

70 FR 39165 (July 6, 2005). We think it 

is appropriate to do the same for RP 

determinations. In this case, Sulfreen®

systems reportedly can achieve 98% to 

99.5% sulfur recovery efficiency while 

SCOT can reportedly achieve sulfur 

recovery as high as 99.8% to 99.9%. The 

cost is higher for the Sulfreen® system 

when compared to the SCOT process. 

Because the SCOT process is more 

effective and costs less than the 

Sulfreen® system, the Sulfreen® system 

was not considered further.’’ 

22. On page 24076, in the second 

column, the first sentence of the third 

paragraph is amended to read, ‘‘Plum 

Creek Manufacturing’s Columbia Falls 

Operation, in Columbia Falls, Montana 

consists of a sawmill, a planer, and 

plywood and medium density 

fiberboard (MDF) processes.’’ 

23. On page 24097, the following 

information is added to the third 

column after the second paragraph, ‘‘K. 

Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, does not apply 

because this action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).’’ 

24. On page 24097, in the third 

column, under Subpart BB—Montana, 

the first line of number three is 

amended to read, ‘‘3. Add section 

52.1395 to read as follows:’’ On page 

24097, in the third column, under 

Subpart BB—Montana, the first line of 

number three is amended to read, ‘‘3. 

Add section 52.1395 to read as follows:’’ 

25. On page 24098, section 52.1396 

(c)(1) is amended to read, ‘‘The owners/ 

operators of EGUs subject to this section 

shall not emit or cause to be emitted 

PM, SO2 or NOX in excess of the 

following limitations, in pounds per 

million British thermal units (lb/ 

MMBtu), averaged over a rolling 30-day 

period for SO2 and NOX:’’ 

26. On page 24098, section 52.1396 

(c)(2) is amended to read, ‘‘The owners/ 

operators of cement kilns subject to this 

section shall not emit or cause to be 

emitted PM, SO2 or NOX in excess of the 

following limitations, in pounds per ton 

of clinker produced, averaged over a 

rolling 30-day period for SO2 and NOX:’’ 

27. On page 24099, the following is 

added to section 52.1396 (g), ‘‘(5) All 

particulate matter stack test results.’’ 

28. On page 24099, section 52.1396 

(h)(4) is amended to read, ‘‘(4) Owner/ 

operator of each unit shall submit 

results of any particulate matter stack 

tests conducted for demonstrating 

compliance win the particulate matter 

BART limits in section (c) above, within 

60 days after completion of the test.’’ 

29. On page 24100, section 52.1396 

(h)(6) is amended to read, ‘‘(6) Any 

other records required by 40 CFR part 

60, Subpart F, or 40 CFR part 60, 

Appendix F, Procedure 1.’’ 

30. On page 24100, section 52.1396 

(i)(5) is added to read, ‘‘(5) Owner/ 

operator of each unit shall submit semiannual reports of any excursions under 

the approved CAM plan in accordance 

with the schedule specified in the 

source’s title V permit.’’ 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: May 8, 2012. 

James B. Martin, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2012–11967 Filed 5–16–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 131 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2009–0596; FRL–9670–7] 

RIN 2040–AF41 

Effective Date for the Water Quality 

Standards for the State of Florida’s 

Lakes and Flowing Waters 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed delay of effective date. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to extend the 

July 6, 2012, effective date of the ‘‘Water 

Quality Standards for the State of 

Florida’s Lakes and Flowing Waters; 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
29272 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Final Rule’’ (inland waters rule) for 

three months to October 6, 2012. EPA 

also is soliciting comment on extending 

the July 6, 2012, effective date by one 

year to July 6, 2013. EPA’s inland waters 

rule as promulgated on December 6, 

2010, included an effective date of 

March 6, 2012, for the entire regulation 

except for the site-specific alternative 

criteria provision, which took effect on 

February 4, 2011. This proposal to 

extend the July 6, 2012, effective date 

for the inland waters rule does not affect 

or change the February 4, 2011, effective 

date for the site-specific alternative 

criteria provision. On March 5, 2012, 

EPA extended the March 6, 2012, 

effective date to July 6, 2012. In this 

proposal, EPA is requesting comment on 

extending the effective date for the 

‘‘Water Quality Standards for the State 

of Florida’s Lakes and Flowing Waters; 

Final Rule’’ from July 6, 2012 to October 

6, 2012, or in the alternative from July 

6, 2012 to July 6, 2013. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 18, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OW–2009–0596, by one of the following 

methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: ow-docket@epa.gov. 

3. Mail to: Water Docket, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Mail 

code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention: 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2009– 

0596. 

4. Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 

EPA West Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OW–2009–0596. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2009– 

0596. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket, visit EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

An electronic version of the public 

docket is available through EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA 

Dockets at http://www.regulations.gov to 

view public comments, access the index 

listing of the contents of the official 

public docket, and access those 

documents in the public docket that are 

available electronically. For additional 

information about EPA’s public docket, 

visit EPA Docket Center homepage at 

http://www.epa.gov/epahome/ 

dockets.htm. Although listed in the 

index, some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

with disclosure restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as copyright 

material, is not placed on the Internet 

and will be publicly available only in 

hard copy form. Publicly available 

docket materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Docket Facility. The Office of Water 

(OW) Docket Center is open from 8:30 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

OW Docket Center telephone number is 

202–566–1744, and the Docket address 

is OW Docket, EPA West, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20004. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information concerning this rulemaking, 

contact: Tracy Bone, U.S. EPA, Office of 

Water, Mailcode 4305T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20460; telephone number 202–564– 

5257; email address: 

bone.tracy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

Does this action apply to me? 

Citizens concerned with water quality 

in Florida may be interested in this 

rulemaking. Entities discharging 

nitrogen or phosphorus to lakes and 

flowing waters of Florida could be 

indirectly affected by this rulemaking 

because water quality standards (WQS) 

are used in determining National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permit limits. Categories and 

entities that may ultimately be affected 

include: 

Category Examples of potentially affected entities 

Industry ............................................................... Industries discharging pollutants to lakes and flowing waters in the State of Florida. 

Municipalities ...................................................... Publicly-owned treatment works discharging pollutants to lakes and flowing waters in the State 

of Florida. 

Stormwater Management Districts ..................... Entities responsible for managing stormwater runoff in Florida. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for entities that may be directly or 

indirectly affected by this action. This 

table lists the types of entities which 

EPA is now aware could potentially be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in the table, such as 

nonpoint source contributors to 

nitrogen/phosphorus pollution in 

Florida’s waters may be affected through 

implementation of Florida’s water 

quality standards program (i.e., through 

Basin Management Action Plans 

(BMAPs)). Any parties or entities 

conducting activities within watersheds 

of the Florida waters covered by this 

rule, or who rely on, depend upon, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 29273 

influence, or contribute to the water 

quality of the lakes and flowing waters 

of Florida, may be affected by this rule. 

To determine whether your facility or 

activities may be affected by this action, 

you should carefully examine the 

language in 40 CFR 131.43, which is the 

final rule. If you have questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

II. Background 

On December 6, 2010, EPA’s final 

inland waters rule, entitled ‘‘Water 

Quality Standards for the State of 

Florida’s Lakes and Flowing Waters; 

Final Rule,’’ was published in the 

Federal Register at 75 FR 75762, and 

codified at 40 CFR 131.43. The final 

inland waters rule established numeric 

nutrient criteria in the form of total 

nitrogen, total phosphorus, 

nitrate+nitrite, and chlorophyll a for the 

different types of Florida’s inland 

waters to assure attainment of the 

State’s applicable water quality 

designated uses. More specifically, the 

numeric nutrient criteria translate 

Florida’s narrative nutrient provision at 

Subsection 62–302–530(47)(b), Florida 

Administrative Code (F.A.C.), into 

numeric values that apply to lakes and 

springs throughout Florida and flowing 

waters outside of the South Florida 

Region. (EPA has distinguished the 

South Florida Region as those areas 

south of Lake Okeechobee and the 

Caloosahatchee River watershed to the 

west of Lake Okeechobee and the St. 

Lucie watershed to the east of Lake 

Okeechobee.) The December 2010 final 

action seeks to improve water quality, 

protect public health and aquatic life, 

and achieve the long-term recreational 

uses of Florida’s waters, which are a 

critical part of the State’s economy. 

As stated in 75 FR 75807 (December 

6, 2010), the rule was scheduled to take 

effect on March 6, 2012, except for the 

site-specific alternative criteria (SSAC) 

provision at 40 CFR 131.43(e), which 

took effect on February 4, 2011. EPA 

selected the March 6, 2012, effective 

date for the criteria part of the rule to 

allow time for EPA to work with 

stakeholders and the Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(FDEP) on important implementation 

issues; to help the public and all 

affected parties better understand the 

final criteria and the basis for those 

criteria; and for EPA to engage and 

support, in full partnership with FDEP, 

the general public, stakeholders, local 

governments, and sectors of the 

regulated community across the State in 

a process of public outreach education, 

discussion, and constructive planning, 

(75 FR 75787, December 6, 2010). 

On December 22, 2011 (76 FR 79604), 

EPA proposed to extend the March 6, 

2012, effective date of the inland waters 

rule to June 4, 2012. EPA received six 

comments on its proposal. EPA 

considered the public comments and 

the continued progress by the FDEP 

toward adoption of nutrient water 

quality standards. EPA decided that a 

four month extension was warranted (77 

FR 13497), and thus extended the 

effective date of the inland waters rule 

to July 6, 2012. 

III. Proposed Extension of July 6, 2012 

Effective Date 

A. Current Inland Waters Rule Effective 

Date and Rationale 

The current effective date for the 

inland waters rule is July 6, 2012 

except, as noted earlier, for the sitespecific alternative criteria (SSAC) 

provision, which became effective 

February 4, 2011. 

As discussed at length in the 

December 22, 2011, proposal to extend 

the effective date of the inland waters 

rule (76 FR 79604), EPA at both the 

Headquarters and Regional levels has 

worked in collaboration with the State 

on outreach and education efforts. In the 

same proposal, EPA also discussed that 

a further extension of the effective date 

of the inland waters rule might be 

needed to allow FDEP to submit the 

recently established State numeric 

nutrient rules to EPA for review and 

action under section 303(c) of the CWA, 

for EPA to complete its review of the 

State rules, and for EPA to withdraw 

any Federal numeric nutrient criteria 

corresponding to any State-adopted 

numeric nutrient criteria that have been 

approved by EPA. 

B. Rationale for Extending the July 6, 

2012 Effective Date 

EPA is proposing to extend the 

effective date of the inland waters rule 

(with the exception of the SSAC 

provision, which is already in effect) for 

three months to October 6, 2012 for the 

reasons discussed in this section. EPA 

also requests comment on the 

possibility of extending the July 6, 2012 

effective date for one year to July 6, 

2013 or further. 

Since the promulgation of the 

December 6, 2010 final rule for Florida’s 

inland waters, EPA has continued to 

work in close coordination with the 

State of Florida as the State develops its 

own rulemaking for numeric nutrient 

criteria (NNC rules) that are consistent 

with requirements of the Clean Water 

Act (CWA), address the water quality 

needs of the State, and support effective 

permit implementation, water body 

assessment and listing, and 

development of TMDLs. The State 

legislature has exempted the state NNC 

rules from legislative ratification and 

directed the FDEP to submit the rules to 

the EPA for review. On February 20, 

2012, the FDEP sent the rules to EPA, 

which sets numeric nutrient criteria for 

lakes, spring vents, streams, and certain 

estuaries in Florida. The FDEP also 

submitted material supporting those 

criteria. EPA looks forward to receiving 

notification from the State of Florida 

that the rules have been officially 

adopted as revisions to the State’s water 

quality standards. 

A petition was filed with the Florida 

Department of Administrative Hearings 

challenging the validity of FDEP’s NNC 

rules. A hearing was held the week of 

February 27, 2012, and the 

Administrative Law Judge has not yet 

issued an order in the case. EPA 

anticipates that the judge will issue a 

ruling in May. At the time of this 

proposal, the outcome of the 

administrative challenge is uncertain. 

The three month extension of the 

effective date of the inland waters rule 

would allow time for the administrative 

challenge to be resolved, and, if FDEP 

prevails, for FDEP to notify EPA that the 

NNC rules have been officially adopted 

as revisions to the State’s water quality 

standards. If EPA were to approve 

Florida’s rules, EPA would then 

consider proposing and finalizing an 

additional extension to allow time for 

EPA to withdraw any Federal numeric 

nutrient criteria that correspond to 

criteria that have been adopted by 

Florida and approved by EPA. 

Final State numeric nutrient criteria 

could have significant implications for 

many interested parties and members of 

the public in the State. In the event that 

alternative Florida numeric nutrient 

criteria are established that assure 

attainment of State designated uses 

consistent with applicable CWA 

provisions, there could be uncertainty 

regarding implementation of EPA’s 

inland water numeric criteria. 

Successful State action on this issue 

could also affect the obligations and 

expectations of a wide range of affected 

stakeholders whose actions relate to the 

discharge or contribution of nitrogen 

and phosphorus pollution to State 

waters. Extending the effective date of 

EPA’s inland waters rule from July 6, 

2012, to October 6, 2012, would avoid 

the confusion and inefficiency that 

could occur should Federal criteria 

become effective while EPA reviews 

State criteria for approval or disapproval 

under CWA section 303(c). Further, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
29274 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

extending the effective date to July 6, 

2013, would avoid the confusion and 

inefficiency that could occur should 

Federal criteria take effect after State 

criteria have been approved and while 

EPA is in the process of withdrawing 

Federal criteria for corresponding 

waters. 

Should EPA decide to extend the 

effective date of the inland waters rule, 

the Agency will continue to work with 

Florida towards implementation of 

either Federal or State numeric nutrient 

criteria. As EPA stated in the preamble 

to the final inland waters rule, the 

opportunity presented by numeric 

nutrient criteria—for substantial 

nitrogen and phosphorus loadings 

reductions in the State—‘‘would be 

greatly facilitated and expedited by 

strongly coordinated and well-informed 

stakeholder engagement, planning, and 

support before a rule of this significance 

and broad scope begins to take effect 

and be implemented through the State’s 

regulatory programs’’ (75 FR 75787, 

December 6, 2010). 

EPA solicits comments regarding the 

proposed extension of three months to 

October 6, 2012, for the effective date of 

the inland waters rule, as well as a 

proposed extension of one year to July 

6, 2013, for the same. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993), since it merely 

extends the effective date of an already 

promulgated rule, and is, therefore, not 

subject to review under Executive Order 

12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 

21, 2011). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This action 

does not impose any information 

collection burden, reporting or record 

keeping requirements on anyone. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute, unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing 

the impacts of this action on small 

entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A 

small business as defined by the Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

This proposed rule does not establish 

any requirements that are applicable to 

small entities, but rather merely extends 

the date of already promulgated 

requirements. Thus, I certify that this 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. The 

action imposes no enforceable duty on 

any State, local or tribal governments or 

the private sector. This action merely 

extends the effective date of an already 

promulgated regulation. Therefore, this 

action is not subject to the requirements 

of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. 

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

This action does not have Federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. This action 

merely extends the effective date of an 

already promulgated regulation. 

F. Executive Order 13175 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). In the State of Florida, there are 

two Indian Tribes, the Seminole Tribe of 

Florida and the Miccosukee Tribe of 

Indians of Florida, with lakes and 

flowing waters. Both Tribes have been 

approved for treatment in the same 

manner as a State (TAS) status for CWA 

sections 303 and 401 and have 

federally-approved WQS in their 

respective jurisdictions. These Tribes 

are not subject to this proposed rule. 

This rule will not impact the Tribes 

because it merely extends the date of 

already promulgated requirements. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed action from 

tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to EO 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because 

it is not economically significant as 

defined in EO 12866 and because the 

Agency does not believe this action 

includes environmental health risks or 

safety risks that would present a risk to 

children. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law No. 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. Therefore, EPA did 

not consider the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 29275 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. This 

proposed action is not subject to E.O. 

12898 because this action merely 

extends the effective date for already 

promulgated requirements. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 131 

Environmental protection, Water 

quality standards, Nitrogen/phosphorus 

pollution, Nutrients, Florida. 

Dated: May 5, 2012. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2012–11843 Filed 5–16–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 272 

[EPA–R06–RCRA–2011–0484; FRL–9652–8] 

Oklahoma: Incorporation by Reference 

of State Hazardous Waste Management 

Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to codify 

in the regulations entitled ‘‘Approved 

State Hazardous Waste Management 

Programs’’, Oklahoma’s authorized 

hazardous waste program. The EPA will 

incorporate by reference into the Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR) those 

provisions of the State regulations that 

are authorized and that the EPA will 

enforce under the Solid Waste Disposal 

Act, commonly referred to as the 

Resource Conversation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA). 

DATES: Send written comments by June 

18, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to 

Alima Patterson, Region 6 Regional 

Authorization Coordinator, or Julia 

Banks Codification Coordinator, State/ 

Tribal Oversight Section (6PD–O), 

Multimedia Planning and Permitting 

Division, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, 

Phone number: (214) 665–8533 or (214) 

665–8178. You may also submit 

comments electronically or through 

hand delivery/courier; please follow the 

detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES

section of the immediate final rule 

which is located in the Rules section of 

this Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alima Patterson, (214) 665–8533. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this 

Federal Register, the EPA is codifying 

and incorporating by reference the 

State’s hazardous waste program as an 

immediate final rule. The EPA did not 

make a proposal prior to the immediate 

final rule because we believe these 

actions are not controversial and do not 

expect comments that oppose them. We 

have explained the reasons for this 

codification and incorporation by 

reference in the preamble to the 

immediate final rule. Unless we get 

written comments which oppose this 

incorporation by reference during the 

comment period, the immediate final 

rule will become effective on the date it 

establishes, and we will not take further 

action on this proposal. If we get 

comments that oppose these actions, we 

will withdraw the immediate final rule 

and it will not take effect. We will then 

respond to public comments in a later 

final rule based on this proposal. You 

may not have another opportunity for 

comment. If you want to comment on 

this action, you must do so at this time. 

Dated: March 16, 2012. 

Al Armendariz, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2012–11876 Filed 5–16–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 1 

[MD Docket No. 12–116; FCC 12–48] 

Assessment and Collection of 

Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2012 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Commission will revise 

its Schedule of Regulatory Fees in order 

to recover an amount of $339,844,000 

that Congress has required the 

Commission to collect for fiscal year 

2012. Section 9 of the Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended, provides for 

the annual assessment and collection of 

regulatory fees under sections 9(b)(2) 

and 9(b)(3), respectively, for annual 

‘‘Mandatory Adjustments’’ and 

‘‘Permitted Amendments’’ to the 

Schedule of Regulatory Fees. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

May 31, 2012, and reply comments on 

or before June 7, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by MD Docket No. 12–116, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web Site: http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202– 

418–0432. 

• Email: ecfs@fcc.gov. Include MD 

Docket No. 12–116 in the subject line of 

the message. 

• Mail: Commercial overnight mail 

(other than U.S. Postal Service Express 

Mail, and Priority Mail, must be sent to 

9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol 

Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service 

first-class, Express, and Priority mail 

should be addressed to 445 12th Street 

SW., Washington, DC 20554. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Roland Helvajian, Office of Managing 

Director at (202) 418–0444. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 12– 

48, MD Docket No. 12–116, adopted on 

May 3, 2012 and released May 4, 2012. 

The full text of this document is 

available for inspection and copying 

during normal business hours in the 

FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street 

SW., Room CY–A257, Portals II, 

Washington, DC 20554, and may also be 

purchased from the Commission’s copy 

contractor, BCPI, Inc., Portals II, 445 

12th Street SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554. Customers may 

contact BCPI, Inc. via their Web site, 

http://www.bcpi.com, or call 1–800– 

378–3160. This document is available in 

alternative formats (computer diskette, 

large print, audio record, and braille). 

Persons with disabilities who need 

documents in these formats may contact 

the FCC by email: FCC504@fcc.gov or 

phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–418– 

0432. 

I. Procedural Matters 

A. Ex Parte Rules-Permit-but Disclose 

Proceeding 

1. This is a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ 

proceeding subject to the requirements 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS